No moral limits to what Rudd will do to win

What, if any, are the moral limits of political affiliation? As a lifelong ALP voter, I have reached mine. Recent political events have provoked a moral crisis in me. The elevation of Kevin Rudd was met with jubilation by many. At the same time, it posed sickening questions of morality for many lifelong ALP members and voters.

After losing the support of almost the entire federal parliamentary caucus in 2010, Rudd aligned himself with the interests of the Liberal Party in the 2010 election campaign by his behaviour. It is alleged that he leaked confidential cabinet deliberations. His conduct guaranteed a hung parliament.

The perverse irony of this was that by virtue of the hung parliament, the ALP was unable to decisively deal with Rudd by expelling him. Instead, for a time great efforts were made to placate him. His behaviour was rewarded with his appointment as Foreign Minister. This did not halt his relentless, destructive campaign, which continued for three years until the ultimate reward was bestowed on June 23, 2013: the prime ministership.

Rudd used all and any means necessary to return to the leadership. His return was too much for some. One-third of the cabinet quit. Among the casualties was one of the best and brightest, Greg Combet. Speaking about his decision on Meet The Press, Combet elliptically referred to the ”competing moralities” that the caucus had wrestled with over the Rudd issue. This was code for accepting the popularity of Rudd in the polls and rewarding Rudd’s behaviour or continuing to support Julia Gillard, notwithstanding her terrible poll numbers. Ever the diplomat, Combet resisted further invitations to expand on this theme.

If completely immoral behaviour is rewarded, the consequences are obvious. The same logic that Rudd used to return to the leadership has propelled his decision to appropriate John Howard’s terrible asylum seeker policy and politics. To be fair, the ALP has consistently failed to deal with the issue of asylum seekers either decently or strategically since 2001. Gillard’s record on asylum seeker policy was also unprincipled. Prior to the PNG solution, it had meekly, and with great inner angst, capitulated to punitive treatment of asylum seekers.

Now, Rudd has enthusiastically elevated the issue to a place it should never be: the foremost electoral issue for the electorate. Howard used the Tampa in 2001 to win a federal election, exploiting xenophobia, racism and fear. Rudd has not needed another Tampa to take the same low road and he may just win the election by doing so. By any means necessary. This strategy is also reminiscent of Howard’s crushing of One Nation. Move hard to the xenophobic right and swallow up the right wing support from your opponent.

That Rudd has written and spoken eloquently and at length about his Christian principles, his admiration for German theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer, and his opposition to ”lurching to the right” on asylum seekers seems immaterial. What happened to the ”biblical injunction to care for strangers in our midst”?

Read the rest here:
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/no-moral-limits-to-what-rudd-will-do-to-win-20130801-2r1z6.html#ixzz2awZFYpY4

Josh Bornstein is an employment lawyer and occasional writer

• Rory Callinan, Manus Island for The Age: Australia funds lethal brute squad

Papua New Guinea’s most thuggish paramilitary police unit – allegedly responsible for rapes, murders and other serious human rights abuses – is being discreetly funded by the Australian Immigration Department to secure the Manus Island asylum seeker detention centre.

The ”Mobile Squad” officers, who just last month beat a local man to death on the island, are receiving a special living-away allowance of about $100 a day from funding provided by the department.

The Australian funding is a handsome bounty for the squad when the average local wage for security staff is about $1.50 an hour, and represents a previously secret aspect to Australia’s ”PNG solution” of directing asylum seekers to PNG.

James Sipuan, 65, said his son Raymond, 21, had only been drunk and swore at the officers when he was beaten in front of hundreds of horrified islanders in the main market on the island in July.

He said Raymond left the police station later that day and was in the market when the officers saw him there and started brutally bashing him again, fatally injuring him.

”They picked him up like a rugby league tackle and speared him into the ground twice, according to witnesses,” Mr Sipuan said.

The squad has also been provided with three rented Toyota Landcruisers at a cost of about $200,000, an amount paid for by Australian Immigration Department funds, according to the rental agent.

The cars can be distinguished from other rentals by the 28-man squad’s practice of hanging their makeshift crowd-controlling whips made out of rubber fan belts from the side mirrors of the vehicles to intimidate the local population.

On Friday the Australian Immigration Department did not deny the payments were occurring and said $558,821 had been allocated last year to cover costs associated with the temp

Read the full story here:
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/australia-funds-lethal-brute-squad-20130803-2r6g1.html#ixzz2ay0vkObp